[SUGGESTION][Poll1]Limit number of shields a player can have at the same time

[LudwigWilhelm]

I am not sure if this has already been said, or if it is even possible, but I find plain ridiculous people going to battle with 2 shields. Would it be possible to limit the number of shields one can choose on the equipment screen to, let's say, one?

EDIT - I've made a little poll, to scout the general feeling about the issue. If there is a majority that dislikes it, another one can be made to rank the suggestions on how to change it.

 

[MaHuD]

Two is possinle as long as you hold one, but three?

 

[Rongar]

I am not sure if this has already been said, or if it is even possible, but I find plain ridiculous people going to battle with 2 shields. Would it be possible to limit the number of shields one can choose on the equipment screen to, let's say, one?

If you see people who is in a battle with 2 shields, that means those people think it’s ok to have more than one shield, don't you think so?
Why do you think that you opinion is more important than their one?

 

[Plazek]

Do you think it ridiculous that someone can hold a 2h weapon and have their shield slung on their back?
If you do then your wrong, and if you don't you have no basis for why someone can't hold a shield a 1h weapon and have a shield slung on their back.

3 shields on the other hand, or 2 shields and a 2 hander in hand should be removed. However bastard swords obviously exempt but should not be able to be wielded as a 2 hander while you have 2 shields.

 

[Septus]

the shield thing isnt really a problem, its their 4 slots and money, let them decide how to spend it. for the realism argument, three is a bit much but 2 is fine.

 

[Darkness]

the shield thing isnt really a problem, its their 4 slots and money, let them decide how to spend it. for the realism argument, three is a bit much but 2 is fine.

If they want to decide to waste that many slots on shields, let them. They can choose to do what they want with their inventory. It is realistic in the confines of the game.

 

[LudwigWilhelm]

I am not sure if this has already been said, or if it is even possible, but I find plain ridiculous people going to battle with 2 shields. Would it be possible to limit the number of shields one can choose on the equipment screen to, let's say, one?

If you see people who is in a battle with 2 shields, that means those people think it’s ok to have more than one shield, don't you think so?
Why do you think that you opinion is more important than their one?

I see it from a purely historical point of view. Knights would go around with two swords and a shield, crossbowmen would have pavise shields on their backs in order to be protected while they reload, but I have yet to see a medieval soldier with more than one shield.

Furthermore, and this is what least bothers me, as it can be seen as gameplay strategy, mellee fights almost always end up with two dudes bashing each other's shields to smithereens. The more shields you have, bigger your advantage.

Then again, I just think it's wrong because of the unrealism. One could argue of a knight that would have a shield and a two-hander, hiding behind a shield as he valiantly charges into the breach or up the ladders, just to reach his objective, throw the shield away and wield his powerful claymore.

If anyone could give me such an analogy for a soldier with two shields, maybe I'd see it more favourably. As it stands, it feels so wrong as a "khergit infantryman" on plate mail and with a great sword, or a "nord heavy cavalryman".

 

[Darkness]

I am not sure if this has already been said, or if it is even possible, but I find plain ridiculous people going to battle with 2 shields. Would it be possible to limit the number of shields one can choose on the equipment screen to, let's say, one?

If you see people who is in a battle with 2 shields, that means those people think it’s ok to have more than one shield, don't you think so?
Why do you think that you opinion is more important than their one?

I see it from a purely historical point of view. Knights would go around with two swords and a shield, crossbowmen would have pavise shields on their backs in order to be protected while they reload, but I have yet to see a medieval soldier with more than one shield.

Furthermore, and this is what least bothers me, as it can be seen as gameplay strategy, mellee fights almost always end up with two dudes bashing each other's shields to smithereens. The more shields you have, bigger your advantage.

Then again, I just think it's wrong because of the unrealism. One could argue of a knight that would have a shield and a two-hander, hiding behind a shield as he valiantly charges into the breach or up the ladders, just to reach his objective, throw the shield away and wield his powerful claymore.

If anyone could give me such an analogy for a soldier with two shields, maybe I'd see it more favourably. As it stands, it feels so wrong as a "khergit infantryman" on plate mail and with a great sword, or a "nord heavy cavalryman".

Either a horseman who knows his shield is easy to break may want a spare or two. Or someone who is besieging a castle and knows one or two smacks will break his shield and so wants to have spares so he extends the length of his life, especially since he knows he is only proficient with one weapon and only plans to use one weapon. Also, a poor sap who gets a little protection from a shield on his back as well as a shield on his front.

 

[Archonsod]

Furthermore, and this is what least bothers me, as it can be seen as gameplay strategy, mellee fights almost always end up with two dudes bashing each other's shields to smithereens. The more shields you have, bigger your advantage.

I rarely take a shield, and have no problem killing those which do. Even if they have two (and I've yet to actually break a shield in hand to hand ). Timing is everything ...

 

[LudwigWilhelm]

@ Darkness

well... I see the scenarios you just pictured as very unlikely, at best. Nevertheless, in this post I saw that this subject is subjective, and it's not something most people think that is wrong. So I am a multi-shield hater    But I reckon nothing will be done regarding it. I will just have to bear with my inner anger when I see people walking covered on wooden planks.

 

[Archonsod]

Don't contain it. Go and bash their skull in

 

[ares007]

Don't contain it. Go and bash their skull in

I think the only solution to this "problem" that most people may not mind is making shields heavier or add more encumbrance. That will discourage people from using 2 or 3 of them.

But yeah, if you do what Archonsod says enough, they might start reconsidering their shield  tactic
(of course don't forget that if you only have one shield, you can outmaneuver them and then like Archonsod said, it's an issue of timing)

Also, if they made armor more effective, people might have less use for multiple shields.

 

[Orion]

Armor is incredibly effective as-is, at least the top tier stuff. I saw three Vaegirs bashing away on a dismounted Khergit lancer with the second-best armor, and that guy took a good 6 or 7 hits to go down. In that same round, I was shot 7 times in the same armor by Vaegir archers, and I was finally killed by a mace.

Armor is fine.

Shields, however, could use a bit of a change. Instead of limiting the number of shields a person could carry, why not change shield stats? If you increase the Resistance attribute of a shield, the damage dealt to the shield is reduced. Resistance is like "armor" for shields. Resistance only works up to a certain point, however, so while a sword might not break a shield in 10 hits, a two-handed axe might break it in 2. I would suggest increasing shield resistance significantly while reducing shield health. That way an axe could still break a shield quickly (as they should) but a sword would take several swings, and arrows would take even more.

Or, if you really want to limit the number of shields, large shields (such as upper-end board shields, heavier heater shields, and heavier kite shields) could take 2 slots, whereas small shields (cavalry shields, all nord shields except for the Huscarl's shield, horseman's/knight's heater/kite shields) would only take 1 slot. If you really, really want three shields, you could get three small shields. If you want two big shields, too bad.

 

[Wu-long]

Furthermore, and this is what least bothers me, as it can be seen as gameplay strategy, mellee fights almost always end up with two dudes bashing each other's shields to smithereens. The more shields you have, bigger your advantage.

I rarely take a shield, and have no problem killing those which do. Even if they have two (and I've yet to actually break a shield in hand to hand ). Timing is everything ...

Well they are everywhere .

 

[Khalid ibn Walid]

but I have yet to see a medieval soldier with more than one shield.

Got a lot of them in your neighborhood? 

 

[Papa Lazarou]

One way or another, people shouldn't want to carry multiple shields. Either through cost or encumbrance. Lots of movements would be very awkward with a shield slung on your back (like bending over to reload a crossbow while wearing a door, for example).

 

[ignoble]

Armor is incredibly effective as-is, at least the top tier stuff. I saw three Vaegirs bashing away on a dismounted Khergit lancer with the second-best armor, and that guy took a good 6 or 7 hits to go down. In that same round, I was shot 7 times in the same armor by Vaegir archers, and I was finally killed by a mace.

That was me I think . The grey lamellar armor is quite tough. I agree that the strength of armor is good, though I would suggest a few pieces have their price increased, such as the beige lamellar that the Vaegirs are so fond of. It costs less than 1000, and is nearly +40 body. Having archers that tough for that cheap is a bit frustrating, especially for factions that have limited access to pierce/blunt such as Nord. In general, I'd like to see the money one spends on gear have a somewhat larger influence on performance. Make the best gear, such as Golden armor on khergit lancers, be even more expensive but totally worth it if you save up rather than the current situation of spending 5k on the best armor and then getting killed with a blow regardless. If the same changes were made to weapons, it could make battlefield looting more important, and so forth...

As far as shields, if someone wants to take three shields... So what? If they have three shields, they have extremely limited throwing ammo, or just a single one hander (Or I guess a two hander...). They trade very good protection from ranged enemies and some protection from axes for very limited offensive variety. You are unprotected when switching shields, so just press the attack when you're beating on a weak shield, and you may get in one or two quick strikes when it breaks before they can switch. There's no balance problem here, only a realism one. There is almost no benefit to taking a third shield; and two is perfectly reasonable from a historical perspective.

 

[Septus]

Shields really are not that effective right now. archers can already shoot around shields, and two handers rip them up fast. so i dont see what the problem is. it would be awkward in real life but so would being able to carry a glaive, a big sword, a giant axe, and a pole hammer, i haven't seen anyone do it, but they can in this game. This is not a balancing issue its just one of those little things that doesnt really matter. if you are going to be relying on your shield, its nice to have a spare, no need to punish those who like this playstyle.

Maybe a poll would be useful here, i think most people either like or dont mind having the two shields, but would be nice to know for sure. I dont think the developers were really thinking about the multi shield thing but i think it actually helps balance the game, if you are going to play a defensive role, you need to actually be able to defend, two handers are a bit overpowered right now because of their speed, so if you are using one hander you are going to need some extra defense.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

That way an axe could still break a shield quickly (as they should) but a sword would take several swings...

I've always thought that heavy weapons, and not just axes, are detrimental to shields the way lighter larger edged weapons aren't.

 

[Darkness]

Don't contain it. Go and bash their skull in

Indeed. The only solution to the world's problems